2024 Paris Olympics General (non-Basketball/Track & Field) Discussion Thread

[sikma42]

Is the French coach actually trying to win? These rotations are horrible.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[LordCovington33]

Léon Marchand is such an incredible swimmer. The French team are having a great Olympics (to be expected), sitting in second position behind China. Australia sitting in third, having just got their 10th gold.

[sikma42]

This French coach is horrible. Same with their guards.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[gavran]

Hungary Japan men's team épée was fantastic.

[basketballRob]

How's Franz looking? I'm at work

Sent from my SM-G781U using RealGM mobile app

[KokoKaizer]

How's Franz looking? I'm at work

Sent from my SM-G781U using RealGM mobile app

Not as good as the French BMX squad

[Nuntius]

Cis means that someone’s sex at birth matches their gender identity, basically the opposite of transgender. Most people are cis. The post you quoted used that term to remove any doubt that Imane is a women.

Yep. And to clarify, the usage of cis- and trans- as prefixes to indicate "the same side of" and "the other side of" is older than dirt. Literally older than Christianity itself. The prefixes themselves stem from Latin and they have been in use ever since the days of the Roman Republic (as can be seen by the names Gallia Cisalpia and Gallia Transalpina, the latter one being a bit more rare since Gallia Narbonensis was also in use).

Pretending that these prefixes are in any way new or not applicable as scientific terms (for another example, they have been used in chemistry for quite a while) is not just wrong. It's hilariously wrong.

[G R E Y]

Latin prefixes are old. Got it.

[G R E Y]

Wow...

Read on Twitter

[Nuntius]

And when I've provided sources from respected scientists in their fields it's oh well they are politically aligned or part of conservative think tank - NOTHING ADDRESSING the scientific findings that are peer reviewed. So this goes both ways. When the science can't be refuted and DSDs that only males have and failed XX and T tests introduce murkiness that a simple test can clarify, it's back to newspeak.

Let me clarify something here. I am not a medical researcher or a scientist in the related fields (biology, endocrinology et cetera). I do not have the necessary knowledge of biology, chemistry, what have you to address the scientific findings of a peer-reviewed paper on this subject matter. So, how can I exactly address any kind of scientific finding in a field where I do not have the required knowledge? If I tried to do so, it would be an affront to the scientific method.

The one thing that I can do as a layman is verify whether the position that said peer-reviewed paper states is widely shared by the scientists and researchers of said field. In other words, to verify if this is the scientific consensus. That's what I can do.

It's not my job to refute the science. My job is to verify whether what's written in that paper is the scientific consensus or not. And, as far as I know at least, there isn't really a scientific consensus on that topic.

[Nuntius]

Wow...

Read on Twitter

And then you're pretending that this isn't political theatre

[AussieCeltic]

11 golds for Australia so far. Amazing feat mainly by our female athletes

[G R E Y]

Is this... Is this not part of his job?

Read on Twitter

Sort it out, mate. Hope6 before the next Games.

[madskillz8]

And when I've provided sources from respected scientists in their fields it's oh well they are politically aligned or part of conservative think tank - NOTHING ADDRESSING the scientific findings that are peer reviewed. So this goes both ways. When the science can't be refuted and DSDs that only males have and failed XX and T tests introduce murkiness that a simple test can clarify, it's back to newspeak.

Let me clarify something here. I am not a medical researcher or a scientist in the related fields (biology, endocrinology et cetera). I do not have the necessary knowledge of biology, chemistry, what have you to address the scientific findings of a peer-reviewed paper on this subject matter. So, how can I exactly address any kind of scientific finding in a field where I do not have the required knowledge? If I tried to do so, it would be an affront to the scientific method.

The one thing that I can do as a layman is verify whether the position that said peer-reviewed paper states is widely shared by the scientists and researchers of said field. In other words, to verify if this is the scientific consensus. That's what I can do.

It's not my job to refute the science. My job is to verify whether what's written in that paper is the scientific consensus or not. And, as far as I know at least, there isn't really a scientific consensus on that topic.

As someone with numerous published papers in good academic journals, and reviewer for 100+ papers in the last decade, all I can say that you guys are taking that peer-review process and peer-reviewed papers very serious, more than you actually should.

First of all, it is very easy to publish a peer-reviewed paper with almost any arguments, especially in mid and low tier jornals. And not surprisingly, you can find peer-reviewed papers that suggests different results on the same subject. Why? Although it is the only viable way to sustain the process, peer-review not actually reviews their results, numerical experiments, field studies, and etc. So it is very easy to create an artificial field study while sitting on your couch, and sell them as a field study in Κυκλάδες. Not surprisingly, combined with myriad of other reasons, a big portion of peer-reviewed research is indeed false.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

Then, peer-review process, like many things in academia was always political, but it is becoming more and more political. Come to US and try to publish a paper that shows the effects of sex in some output, say "intersex and "cis" athletes performance which you were asking for

Third and last, on "cis" being a scientific term... That's just semantics.

Well, like everyone and their mothers know, it is basically a slur popular in same circles, thus this way of usage, I mean a homosexual person talking about a heterosexual person as a "she's cis, you know", is somehow being discussed in gender studies area which is normally trying to develop a terminology like many social studies. However, when one poster, who is a foul-mouthed **** talker, comes this thread to start throwing, "cis", "anti-trans" etc in very first post, we know that she/he is not citing something from scientific papers. We're not stupid.

Again, such people are not using "cis" because of its chemical or Latin or scientific roots discussed in these journals, actually academic journals on gender studies such as Journal of Transgender studies are publishing papers discussing this term, just because it is a commonly used in these circles. And surprise, academics publishing in these journals are actually the part of this circles. If that's enough for you to say "cis" is a scientific term, yes, it is very scientific. Also, don't get mad if someone calls you "homo", just because homo and hetero are indeed scientific terms, he's just talking with you in scientific terms. It is perfectly scientific.

[G R E Y]

And when I've provided sources from respected scientists in their fields it's oh well they are politically aligned or part of conservative think tank - NOTHING ADDRESSING the scientific findings that are peer reviewed. So this goes both ways. When the science can't be refuted and DSDs that only males have and failed XX and T tests introduce murkiness that a simple test can clarify, it's back to newspeak.

Let me clarify something here. I am not a medical researcher or a scientist in the related fields (biology, endocrinology et cetera). I do not have the necessary knowledge of biology, chemistry, what have you to address the scientific findings of a peer-reviewed paper on this subject matter. So, how can I exactly address any kind of scientific finding in a field where I do not have the required knowledge? If I tried to do so, it would be an affront to the scientific method.

The one thing that I can do as a layman is verify whether the position that said peer-reviewed paper states is widely shared by the scientists and researchers of said field. In other words, to verify if this is the scientific consensus. That's what I can do.

It's not my job to refute the science. My job is to verify whether what's written in that paper is the scientific consensus or not. And, as far as I know at least, there isn't really a scientific consensus on that topic.

Yes thank you. And to update, you're actually the lone poster who's said you'd be fine with athletes competing in whichever category a potential sex test would determine from those who stress the two boxers are women. Doc MJ was I think the first to mention a third competition category. And you were open to that too. Same here. Whichever athletes said they were fine with.

But there does seem to be uniformity, at least a strong majority of female Olympians who favour it, and developmental and biologists who are clear about its reimplementation in whichever new format that is now openly being asked about. Progress of sorts for the IOC.

[G R E Y]

Wow...

Read on Twitter

And then you're pretending that this isn't political theatre

What are you talking about? The IBA gesture or that I posted it? It's current info relevant to the situation still unfolding. Same with the tweet about Mark now asking for testing solutions lmao good call, mate.

[Nuntius]

Bold parts: it is prudent to question veracity of sources but dangerous to conflate opinions with leading to faulty results. The checks and balances along the way of peer reviewed and editor-scanned papers ensures that the science stands on its own merit. And those opinions somehow being presented as having a political component ('agenda' is a loaded term) tends to overshadow the work itself, perhaps dismiss it wholesale as Bergmaniac well expressed, and that cannot stand.

As I said before, I am not here to judge the validity of a peer-reviewed paper. That's the job of someone with expertise on the subject matter, not mine.

But the problem here is that you are trying to present their opinions on the subject matter (the opinion that the athletes in question should be considered male) as a fact. Well, it isn't a fact. It's an opinion. There is no scientific consensus on whether someone like Caster Semenya should be considered male or female. There is no scientific consensus on whether people with DSDs have an illegitimate advantage in sports. The science around this topic is still evolving and trying to dumb it down to XY=male does no good to anyone.

And the fact that there is no scientific consensus on this and yet you still have renowned scientists proclaim their opinions as facts can only mean one thing, really. It means that they are motivated by their bias.

WMA quote: this pertains to the ethics of forcing lowering of T for athletes who happen to present with higher T and compete in XX. It does not address validity of testing for XX, XY, XY-DSD and appropriately categorizing, and if a new category arises out of both sex tests and concerns over lowering natural T, fine.

The statement also said the following:

At its Council meeting in Santiago, Chile, today, the WMA demanded the immediate withdrawal of the regulations. It said they constitute a flagrant discrimination based on the genetic variation of female athletes and are contrary to international medical ethics and human rights standards.

"Flagrant discrimination on the genetic variation of female athletes" is what the WMA said. Verbatim. What kind of genetic variation are they talking about if not DSDs? To me, at least, it does look like they consider these athletes with genetic variations to be female. In other words, this statement does contradict the claims you've made in this thread (as long as the various tweets posted who shared those views).

It also indicates that the opinion of the scientific community in the subject matter is split. That there is no consensus. There are scientists who agree with you like Hilton and Hoover and scientists who disagree with you like the WMA.

About gender critical views - and I'm including SexMatters as it pertains to Hilton: several high profile academics were rushed to judgement out of their jobs and have paid the price in court tribunals. I actually agree with the general purpose of Sex Matters of clear sex language in law and boundaries in practice. And as to Hooven being part of a conservative think tank, well I don't trust liberal ones any more than conservative ones, and this is coming from a voting liberal. Nevertheless, the above point about peer reviewed and edited science stands.

And you have the right to your opinion. If you agree with gender critical views, that's your right. And it is also my right to disagree with them.

Why is it not easy to prove what category someone belongs to after a test? XX and XX-DSDs compete in the XX category (or, should it be preferred by XX-DSDs, a separate category); XY, XY-DSDs compete in the XY category (or, should it be preferred by XY-DSDs). If the issue is how a person is raised and considers oneself, these do not trump the biology for the purposes of fair competition. If the issue is with testing, there's lots of it already for banned substances, more invasive (blood drawn), and more often. If the issue is check and balances for the tests, there ought to be established an independent neutral site/lab/test/re-test that double checks results. It's beyond negligible for the IOC to not have gotten ahead of this. Completely unfair to all athletes involved. Thanks for turning the tide to a more thoughtful toned down discussion. Good talk.

Because there is no scientific consensus that a person with an XX-DSD should be considered female and a person with an XY-DSD should be considered male. That's why it's not easy to prove.

Also, afaik, those kind of tests have been majorly wrong before and have destroyed the legacy of female athletes. Look up the case of Ewa Kłobukowska as an example. But I do believe that the lack of scientific consensus mentioned above is the more important point of the two.

[Nuntius]

Wow...

Read on Twitter

And then you're pretending that this isn't political theatre

What are you talking about? The IBA gesture or that I posted it? If the former, them we can get into looking for intersex athletes in poor countries because it's a lucrative ways to make a mark faster. But it's a side point to the central one. If the latter, posting current info about the situation as it unfolds. Same with the tweet about Mark now asking for testing solutions lmao good call, mate.

I'm talking about the IBA. The IBA is embroiled in a feud with the IOC ever since the IOC pulled their recognition of the IBA and World Boxing was literally created to replace the IBA. So, this is how the IBA is trying to fight back. By throwing itself head first into the culture wars in a bid to gain support and delegitimize their opponents.

It's the definition of political theatre.

[G R E Y]

Bold parts: it is prudent to question veracity of sources but dangerous to conflate opinions with leading to faulty results. The checks and balances along the way of peer reviewed and editor-scanned papers ensures that the science stands on its own merit. And those opinions somehow being presented as having a political component ('agenda' is a loaded term) tends to overshadow the work itself, perhaps dismiss it wholesale as Bergmaniac well expressed, and that cannot stand.

As I said before, I am not here to judge the validity of a peer-reviewed paper. That's the job of someone with expertise on the subject matter, not mine.

But the problem here is that you are trying to present their opinions on the subject matter (the opinion that the athletes in question should be considered male) as a fact. Well, it isn't a fact. It's an opinion. There is no scientific consensus on whether someone like Caster Semenya should be considered male or female. There is no scientific consensus on whether people with DSDs have an illegitimate advantage in sports. The science around this topic is still evolving and trying to dumb it down to XY=male does no good to anyone.

And the fact that there is no scientific consensus on this and yet you still have renowned scientists proclaim their opinions as facts can only mean one thing, really. It means that they are motivated by their bias.

WMA quote: this pertains to the ethics of forcing lowering of T for athletes who happen to present with higher T and compete in XX. It does not address validity of testing for XX, XY, XY-DSD and appropriately categorizing, and if a new category arises out of both sex tests and concerns over lowering natural T, fine.

The statement also said the following:

At its Council meeting in Santiago, Chile, today, the WMA demanded the immediate withdrawal of the regulations. It said they constitute a flagrant discrimination based on the genetic variation of female athletes and are contrary to international medical ethics and human rights standards.

"Flagrant discrimination on the genetic variation of female athletes" is what the WMA said. Verbatim. What kind of genetic variation are they talking about if not DSDs? To me, at least, it does look like they consider these athletes with genetic variations to be female. In other words, this statement does contradict the claims you've made in this thread (as long as the various tweets posted who shared those views).

It also indicates that the opinion of the scientific community in the subject matter is split. That there is no consensus. There are scientists who agree with you like Hilton and Hoover and scientists who disagree with you like the WMA.

About gender critical views - and I'm including SexMatters as it pertains to Hilton: several high profile academics were rushed to judgement out of their jobs and have paid the price in court tribunals. I actually agree with the general purpose of Sex Matters of clear sex language in law and boundaries in practice. And as to Hooven being part of a conservative think tank, well I don't trust liberal ones any more than conservative ones, and this is coming from a voting liberal. Nevertheless, the above point about peer reviewed and edited science stands.

And you have the right to your opinion. If you agree with gender critical views, that's your right. And it is also my right to disagree with them.

Why is it not easy to prove what category someone belongs to after a test? XX and XX-DSDs compete in the XX category (or, should it be preferred by XX-DSDs, a separate category); XY, XY-DSDs compete in the XY category (or, should it be preferred by XY-DSDs). If the issue is how a person is raised and considers oneself, these do not trump the biology for the purposes of fair competition. If the issue is with testing, there's lots of it already for banned substances, more invasive (blood drawn), and more often. If the issue is check and balances for the tests, there ought to be established an independent neutral site/lab/test/re-test that double checks results. It's beyond negligible for the IOC to not have gotten ahead of this. Completely unfair to all athletes involved. Thanks for turning the tide to a more thoughtful toned down discussion. Good talk.

Because there is no scientific consensus that a person with an XX-DSD should be considered female and a person with an XY-DSD should be considered male. That's why it's not easy to prove.

Also, afaik, those kind of tests have been majorly wrong before and have destroyed the legacy of female athletes. Look up the case of Ewa Kłobukowska as an example. But I do believe that the lack of scientific consensus mentioned above is the more important point of the two.

The info about Semenya is false. Do you know how we know for a fact thatCS has XY and that specific DSD? Serious question.

And developmental biology is NOT an opinion, like which puberty a person undergoes and what the results are is clear, geez

[Nuntius]

As someone with numerous published papers in good academic journals, and reviewer for 100+ papers in the last decade, all I can say that you guys are taking that peer-review process and peer-reviewed papers very serious, more than you actually should.

First of all, it is very easy to publish a peer-reviewed paper with almost any arguments, especially in mid and low tier jornals. And not surprisingly, you can find peer-reviewed papers that suggests different results on the same subject. Why? Although it is the only viable way to sustain the process, peer-review not actually reviews their results, numerical experiments, field studies, and etc. So it is very easy to create an artificial field study while sitting on your couch, and sell them as a field study in Κυκλάδες. Not surprisingly, combined with myriad of other reasons, a big portion of peer-reviewed research is indeed false.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

Then, peer-review process, like many things in academia was always political, but it is becoming more and more political. Come to US and try to publish a paper that shows the effects of sex in some output, say "intersex and "cis" athletes performance which you were asking for

Since you're someone with numerous published papers, you can make that determination.

I haven't published any papers yet so I am not qualified to make any determination on peer-reviewed studies.

Also, what's up with the gratuitous Greek?

However, when one poster, who is a foul-mouthed **** talker, comes this thread to start throwing, "cis", "anti-trans" etc in very first post, we know that she/he is not citing something from scientific papers. We're not stupid.

Wait, what? Since when is DOT a foul-mouthed **** talker? That is a completely preposterous accusation, in my opinion.

Seriously, the team I support just played a 7-game series against the Knicks (the team that DOT supports). I got a ton of first-hand experience of what a Knicks fan's **** talking sounds like. Hell, a number of them are still **** talking my Pacers to this day. But DOT was never one of them. He never engaged in **** talking during the series. And, generally, I don't think I've ever talk him **** talk in general.

That's a pretty wild accusation.

Third and last, on "cis" being a scientific term... That's just semantics.

Well, like everyone and their mothers know, it is basically a slur popular in same circles, thus this way of usage, I mean a homosexual person talking about a heterosexual person as a "she's cis, you know", is somehow being discussed in gender studies area which is normally trying to develop a terminology like many social studies.

Again, such people are not using "cis" because of its chemical or Latin or scientific roots discussed in these journals, actually academic journals on gender studies such as Journal of Transgender studies are publishing papers discussing this term, just because it is a commonly used in these circles. And surprise, academics publishing in these journals are actually the part of this circles. If that's enough for you to say "cis" is a scientific term, yes, it is very scientific. Also, don't get mad if someone calls you "homo", just because homo and hetero are indeed scientific terms, he's just talking with you in scientific terms. It is perfectly scientific.

Yeah, I've heard the argument that cis is a slur before. Never considered it a valid argument. Never saw any real evidence that the term is actually used as a slur.

I mean, seriously, even the way that you're using it here is inaccurate. Your claim here is that a homosexual person talking about a heterosexual person would say "she's cis, you know" as an insult and, well, that doesn't make any freaking sense whatsoever. The term cis doesn't denote sexual orientation. It denotes one's relationship with the sex they were assigned at birth. That's all it means. "Cis" simply means "not trans". As a matter of fact, the vast majority of homosexual people are cisgender themselves.

So, yeah, bad way to state your position, imo, as what you wrote makes little sense.